Copaescu Ana Maria, Chua Kyra Y L, Mouhtouris Effie, Holmes Natasha E, AlGassim Moneerah, Al Otaibi Ibtihal, Stehlin Florian, Isabwe Ghislaine A C, Tsoukas Christos, Toupin Jean-Francois, Lee Derek, Ben-Shoshan Moshe, Phillips Elizabeth J, Trubiano Jason A
Centre for Antibiotic Allergy and Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2025 Aug 14;21(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s13223-025-00982-3.
The use of in vivo and ex vivo diagnostic tools for delayed hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) associated with iodinated contrast media (ICM) is currently ill-defined.
To evaluate the role of in vivo and ex vivo diagnostic tools for DHRs occurring >6 h following intravenous low-osmolality ICM.
We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international cohort study. The patients were recruited from two tertiary care adult allergy clinics, Austin Health, Australia and the McGill University Health Centre, Canada. Eligible participants were adults who reported a DHR after receiving ICM. In vivo testing (skin testing and intravenous challenge) was performed to identify an alternative agent. Ex vivo testing using interferon-γ enzyme-linked ImmunoSpot assay was performed in four Australian patients to explore its diagnostic performance.
The culprit ICM was identified by dIDT in 17/20 (85%) while in 3/20 (15%) a challenge was necessary to confirm delayed hypersensitivity. All patients with a positive dIDT to iohexol were positive to iodixanol (15/15; 100%) while 3/4 (75%), 3/4 (75%), 4/6 (67%), and 3/5 (60%) were positive to iopromide, ioversol, iopamidol, and iobitridol, respectively. Overall, 7/20 (35%) patients tolerated a challenge with an alternative ICM. The IFN-γ release assay was negative for the implicated ICM in 4 patients with confirmed DHR through a positive dIDT.
dIDT allowed confirmation of T cell-mediated allergy to the implicated ICM in 85% of patients with a strong clinical suspicion of DHR and identification of non-cross-reactive ICM in 35% of patients. The IFN-y ELISpot was not useful in the four patients tested.
目前,用于诊断与碘化造影剂(ICM)相关的迟发型超敏反应(DHR)的体内和体外诊断工具的使用尚不清楚。
评估体内和体外诊断工具对静脉注射低渗ICM后6小时以上发生的DHR的作用。
我们进行了一项前瞻性、多中心、国际队列研究。患者从澳大利亚奥斯汀健康中心和加拿大多伦多麦吉尔大学健康中心的两家三级成人过敏诊所招募。符合条件的参与者是在接受ICM后报告有DHR的成年人。进行体内测试(皮肤测试和静脉激发试验)以确定替代药物。在四名澳大利亚患者中进行了使用干扰素-γ酶联免疫斑点试验的体外测试,以探索其诊断性能。
17/20(85%)的患者通过延迟激发试验(dIDT)确定了罪魁祸首ICM,而3/20(15%)的患者需要进行激发试验以确认迟发型超敏反应。所有对碘海醇dIDT呈阳性的患者对碘克沙醇均呈阳性(15/15;100%),而对碘普罗胺、碘佛醇、碘帕醇和碘比醇呈阳性的患者分别为3/4(75%)、3/4(75%)、4/6(67%)和3/5(60%)。总体而言,7/20(35%)的患者耐受了替代ICM的激发试验。在4名通过阳性dIDT确诊为DHR的患者中,干扰素-γ释放试验对相关ICM呈阴性。
dIDT在85%临床高度怀疑DHR的患者中证实了对相关ICM的T细胞介导的过敏反应,并在35%的患者中识别出无交叉反应的ICM。在测试的四名患者中,干扰素-γ酶联免疫斑点试验无用。